Right to Information No.:RTI202425-063

Right to Information No.:RTI202425-063

Right to Information No.: RTI202425-063

Date of Decision:              14 February 2025

Information Requested

An application for assessed disclosure of information was made pursuant to the Right to Information Act 2009 (‘the Act’), was received by the Department of Health on 26 August 2024 and accepted on 2 September 2024. 

The information applied for was:

1. All correspondence and meeting minutes (from 1/02/2024 to 26/08/2024) between the relevant Minister and the Department of Health concerning a healthcare recruitment blitz that has delivered 494 (or roughly equivalent number) of additional staff in to the Tasmanian health system.
2. All Department of Health reports and correspondence with data and/or statistics concerning staff recruitment from between 01/02/2024 and 26/08/2024.
3. All Department of Health reports and correspondence with data/or statistics concerning staff retention (including those subject to vacancy control measures from between 01/02/2024 and 26/08/2024.
4. All correspondence to and from the Secretary and to and from the Minister concerning the RHH ED redevelopment between 1 January 2024 and 26 August 2024. 
5. All internal correspondence regarding modifications and the decision to modify the RHH ED from 1 May 2024 and 26 August 2024.

The Department released information in full responsive to requests 1-3 on 18 November 2024. 

The applicant, following a request from the Department, agreed to vary the scope of requests 4 and 5 from all internal correspondence to just correspondence for the purposes of formally briefing decision makers on the RHH ED redevelopment project. The Department also extended the date range in which to search through. 

Application fee

The prescribed application fee was waived pursuant to section 16(2) of the Act.

Time taken to make this decision 

The applicant, pursuant to section 15(4)(a) of the Act, agreed to grant an extension on the application for assessed disclosure. The Department recognises that the application has taken longer to finalise than would be expected and apologises for the delay. 

Decision

The application for assessed disclosure of information has resulted in the following information being released:

• the Recruitment Blitz reports (released separately on 18 November 2024); 
• the letter from the AMA to the Premier of Tasmania (cc’d Minister for Health); 
• Infrastructure Oversight Committee Minutes; and
• RHH ED Redevelopment Project Change Request.

However, the information is refused in part due to it being for exempt information.

The below information explains why and how the application was decided this way, with a detailed Schedule of Documents attached.

What does the law say?

The information captured by this application concerns the following provisions of the Act:

Section 35 – Internal deliberative information 

The applies where the information consists of:

• an opinion, advice, or recommendation prepared by the public authority, or a record of deliberations by officers of the public authority; 
• the information is in the course of official business of the public authority; 
• the information is not completely factual, a record of a final decision, and easily severed from the deliberations;
• it is not older than ten years; and
• the release would be contrary to the public interest.

Section 36 – Personal information of a third party

This applies where the information consists of:

• reasonably identifying information recorded about a person who is not the applicant;
• who is alive, or has not been dead more than 25 years; 
• release would be contrary to the public interest; and
• if release of personal information is being considered, then the Department is required to consult with identified persons about the release.

Section 38 – Business information of the public authority

This applies where the information consists of:

• Information that, if released, would expose the public authority to competitive disadvantage or would release ‘trade secrets’; and
• the release would be contrary to the public interest. 

The Public Interest Test 

Information subject to the public interest test is exempt if disclosure would be, after taking into consideration the relevant factors contained within Schedule 1 of the Act, contrary to the public interest. 

The public has been defined as the interest of a substantial section of the public. While information may be of interest to individuals or small sections of the public, this does not necessarily mean that the information is of the public interest. The public interest best serves the advancement of the interest or welfare of the public, society or the nation.^[1]

The Act requires that certain considerations be taken into account in determining whether the disclosure of information is contrary to the public interest. They are contained within Schedule 1 of the Act. I have considered the clauses contained within the Schedule (where the public interest test is applicable) when determining the exemptions. 

What does that mean for this application?

The information that this application has identified includes recommendations and briefings to senior staff within the public authority. This information contains information that provides advice and recommendations to internal stakeholders involved in the public authority’s infrastructure program. It contains financial information on internal budgets and expenditure related to certain infrastructure projects. It also contains direct contact information of staff members. I have exempted certain elements of the information where disclosure would be contrary to the public interest. 

What about the public right to information?

Section 35 – Internal Deliberative Information

The information exempted pursuant to section 35 contains recommendations, opinions, and records of consultations undertaken by the public authority and its staff regarding the RHH redevelopment project. It references cost approximations and weighs up potential options of proceeding with the project. This information is intertwined with fact, which cannot be severed from the opinion and recommendations. Where there is publicly available information included as background, or factual information for background, I have not exempted that information. The public authority’s staff are entitled to pre-decisional thinking processes. The public authority must be allowed to undertake robust deliberations and weigh up options without fear and provide frank advice about the issue. This aligns with the basis for section 35. While I consider that information should be available to members of the public, I do not consider that it should come at the detriment of these initial deliberations and weighing up of options. In terms of infrastructure especially, there are already mechanisms in place in which the public or stakeholders may become involved in consultation. This can either be directly through the public authority, or through the relevant planning authority. The information identified by the application refers directly to unfinalised design plans and reports that are not yet ready for public consultation. Opening the deliberations of the public authority to the public at every point of project design would frustrate the set consultation process and cause unnecessary delays, confusion, and costs. 

Section 36 – Personal Information

The Act recognises that certain information is personal information that should not be disclosed via the operation of the Act. This information can include a person’s name, address, telephone number, date of birth, medical records, bank account details, taxation information and signature. It is information that would allow for another to reasonably identify them. Information that is publicly available and well known should be given appropriate consideration when determining whether personal information is exempt. Furthermore, names of state service employees acting in the course of their duties are not normally considered exempt unless there are specific or unusual circumstances.^[2] The Tasmanian Ombudsman has accepted that the release of direct contact details of state servants is not in the public interest, and the public authority should be entitled to maintain established points of contact with the public. 

I have considered Schedule 1 of the Act and have determined that the release of direct contact information of staff, such as their personal mobile numbers, would cause enough concern and distress to those staff to warrant the exemption because those details are not ordinarily released to the public. 

Section 38 – Business Information

The information contains a breakdown of costings and budget allocations to specific subparts of projects at a level that would otherwise not be publicly reported. This information should be afforded appropriate confidentiality to allow the public authority to negotiate strongly in a procurement market, especially one as competitive as construction and infrastructure. It would not be in the public interest to publicise this information to suppliers who may use that information to inform tenders and negotiations to the detriment of the public authority. 

Review options

Under section 43 of the Act, you have the right to apply for a review of the decision. To seek a review, you must first apply in writing to the Secretary, Department of Health, GPO Box 125, Hobart 7001, within 20 working days of receiving this notice. This request for review can be emailed to [email protected] 

Attachments

1. Schedule of Documents 

Attachment 1 – Schedule of Documents

[1] McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2005] FCAFC 142, [9] (Tamberlin J). 

[2]T and Department of Health (Ombudsman Tasmania, March 2024) https://www.ombudsman.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/754762/R2311-023-Final-decision-T-and-DoH.pdf, [26].